ncloud_secret_update_protection_key

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, and the description adds region-specific requirements (KR needs kmsBoundaryType; JPN is ISOLATED). It does not disclose what happens to already-encrypted secret versions, whether the operation is reversible, or permission requirements for a mutation that rebinds a secret's encryption key.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the region constraint. Every clause carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and annotations that omit readOnlyHint, the description covers region/config prerequisites but is silent on side effects and whether existing secret data is re-encrypted or inaccessible. Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin on impact for a key-rebinding operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the conditional requirement of kmsKeyTag and the region-scoped keyIsolation behavior. The description restates the protectionKeyType/kmsKeyTag relationship but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the KMS protection key of a secret') and immediately names the two target modes (DEFAULT vs USER_MANAGED_KEY via kmsKeyTag). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like ncloud_secret_list_protection_keys or the ncloud_kms_* tools without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit preconditions: kmsBoundaryType is required in the KR region and JPN is always ISOLATED, and it ties kmsKeyTag to USER_MANAGED_KEY. However it names no alternative tool and states no when-not-to-use condition, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.